yank unary '+'?

[KennyTM~]

On Dec 7, 09 13:11, Don wrote:
> KennyTM~ wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 09 05:12, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> I am completely underwhelmed by 1-6 and have strong arguments against
>>> each, but "frankly, my dear" I have bigger problems than that. I have
>>> exactly zero valid reasons I could mention in TDPL, and that's my litmus
>>> test. I find the operator utterly useless. If '+' stays in, then call it
>>> horsetrading but the occasionally useful '^^=' must also be in.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> There would be zero reason to explain 1.0 vs 1.00, 1.0e2 vs 1.0e+2,
>> and 0xabc vs 0xABC vs 0Xabc vs 0XABC too.
>>
>> And I thought there isn't ^^= yet just because Don's patch was only a
>> proof-of-concept thing. (Currently 3*4^^2 doesn't event produce the
>> expected result.) ^^= will be in, but that's irrelevant.
>
> Not so. My patch included ^^=, but Walter stripped it out because he
> wasn't convinced there were enough use cases for it.

Ah, I see.